According to the article below, how does Tesla work in considerations regarding why businesses rely on the rule of law into its complaint against Alameda County?

Article:

As COVID-19 loomed, local officials scrambled to implement myriad measures protecting the Californians in their jurisdictions. The State stepped in to ensure Californias response was clear, uniform, and coordinated using state-wide regulations. On some issues, that meant establishing baseline policies, and on others, it meant choosing the policy across the state. 2.The Governors March 20, 2020 stay-at-home order sought to balance the need to protect Californians from infection against the need to maintain Californians access to vital supplies and services. In so doing, the Governor chose the policy on one issue:businesses classified by the federal government as critical infrastructure are essential to Californians and are allowed to continue operating as part of Californias coordinated response to COVID-19. 3.The Order was clear on this point: I order that Californians working in these 16 critical infrastructure sectors may continue their work because of the importance of these sectors to Californians health and well-being. This purpose was to establish consistency and that the supply chain must continue, and Californians must have access to such necessities as food, prescriptions, and health care. This was not a state-level baseline inviting county innovation above and beyond a minimum; this is an order that certain essential businesses shall be permitted to remain open statewide to provide essential goods and services to all Californians. 4.Nevertheless, Alameda County decided thatnotwithstanding the clear language and statewide logic of the Governors order on this pointit would insist that its prior (and subsequent) conflicting pronouncements controlled over the state-wide order. Alameda County thus arrogated to itself the power to force closure of businesses that the state government had ordered could remain open because they are federally-defined critical infrastructure serving vital security, safety, or economic needs of Californians.

Inexplicably, Alameda County proceeded to direct its shutdown at Tesla, even as Alameda County has simultaneously maintained and publicized a FAQ that expressly describes essential businesses in terms that encompass Teslas Fremont Facility:1My business installs distributed solar, storage, and/or electric vehicle charging systems can it continue to operate? Yes, this is permissible construction activity and must comply with the Construction Project Safety Protocols in Appendix B of the Order. Businesses may also operate to manufacture distributed energy resource components, like solar panels. 6.What is more, the County has asserted that violations of its orders carry criminal penalties, even though it lacks statutory or other legal authority to do so. Thus, Alameda County has not only created a legal quagmire by wrongly declaring that its own orders trump the state-level orders, it has threatened jail time and significant fines for businesses and individuals that do not comply, even where they are clearly authorized by the State Order to continue critical infrastructure activities. 7.To be clear, Alameda County is not using the existing authority of local health officers to supplement a baseline set by the State, issuing policies more restrictive than or in addition to that baseline, as referenced in a May 4, 2020 Order. The County is making rules that directly contradict and undermine the policy announced by the Governor in his Orders. 8.Alameda Countys power-grab not only defies the Governors Order, but offends the federal and California constitutions. First, the Countys order violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it fails to give reasonable notice to persons of ordinary intelligence of what is forbidden under the law. By prohibiting what the Governors Order expressly permits, the Countys Order puts businesses deemed critical to the nations wellbeing by the federal and state governments between a rock and a hard placeunable to discern what the applicable law permits, under threat of criminal prosecution. This is precisely the dilemma the Due Process Clauses requirement of fair notice seeks to avoid, particularly where, as here, there is no procedure for Plaintiff even to challenge the Countys determination that it is not an essential business that may continue operations under the Countys Order. 9.Second, the Countys Order discriminates against identically situated parties without any rational basis and thereby violates the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. Even as at least one neighboring county is allowing car manufacturing to resume, Alameda County continues to insistin violation of the Governors Order and against reasonthat what is permitted in a neighboring county will endanger the public health if permitted to also occur within Alameda County borders. Furthermore, even as Alameda County itself declares businesses like Tesla essential, it somehow simultaneously insists, without rational explanation, that Tesla is to remain shut down 10.Third, a county may only make and enforce within its limits . . . ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Calif. Const., art. XI, 7. By purporting to override an express order of the Governor of California, Alameda County has far exceeded its ambit under the California Constitution. In sum, the Countys Orders threaten not only to close businesses supplying critical infrastructure, thereby violating multiple federal and state constitutional principles, but also to jail people pursuant to criminal statutes that simply do not apply here. To that extent, the Countys Orders should be declared void and without legal effect. THE PARTIES 11.Plaintiff Tesla, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in California. 12.Defendant Alameda County, California, is a local government entity organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13.The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question) because this action involves interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. XIV) and because the action seeks to prevent Defendants from interfering with federal rights.